(link: /) › Advanced Studies (link: /en/advanced-studies) › Lam-rim (link: /en/advanced-studies/lam-rim) › Karma:

Advanced (link: /en/advanced-studies/lam-rim#karma-advanced)

Differentiating Body, Speech and Mind Karmic Impulses in

Sautrantika
Dr. Alexander Berzin · 25:14

How a Mental Urge, and Not a Revealing Form, Functions as a Karmic

Impulse for Actions of the Body
Vasubandhu explains in A Discussion for the Establishment of Karma (Las-grub-pa’i rab-tu byed-pa, Skt. Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa)
(Derge vol. 136, 144B):

Suppose (Vaibhashika) asks, “If it is only a mental urge that is a constructive or destructive karmic impulse, then
how is it that the sutras that are the sources (about karma) say, ‘The three types of karmic impulses (for actions of
the body) that are destructive karmic impulses that are (true) origins of suffering and that possess a ripening into
types of suffering are those that are (done) with the body that, having been premeditated, are enacted and
reinforced?’”

(Sautrantika answers), the intended meaning is, “It is certain (that the sutras are referring to the mental urges) that
take [1] (the body) as the gateway (through which they bring about the actions), that take [2] (the body) as their
sphere of influence and that [3] take (the body) as what they direct themselves at.”

(Tib.) /gal te sems pa kho na las dge ba dang / mi dge ba yin na/ las mi dge ba sdug bsngal ’byung ba sdug
bsngal gyi rnam par smin pa can rnam pa gsum ni lus kyis ched du bsams nas byas shing bsags pa yin zhes
’byung ba’i mdo ji lta bu zhe na/ sgo dang rten dang dmigs pa nges/ /zhes bya bar dgongs pa’o/

Sumatishila explains the Vaibhashika objection in An Annotated Commentary on (Vasubandhu’s) “Establishment of Karma” (Las-
grub-pa’i bshad-pa, Skt. Karmasiddhiṭīkā) (Derge Tengyur vol. 138, 99B):

As for “If it is only a mental urge” and so on, then this is teaching (something) that is in contradiction with the
sutras (that state) otherwise. As for “the three types,” they are (differentiated) by means of the distinctions of their
being the taking of a life, (the taking of what has not been given) and so on. As for “having been premeditated,” it
(the taking of a life and so on) is something that has been thought over beforehand, not (done) on the spur of the
moment and so on. As for “origins of suffering,” because they become causes for suffering, they are true origins of
suffering. As for “possess a ripening into types of suffering,” because sufferings are their results, they possess
results that are sufferings. As for “enacted and,” (it means) “implemented.” As for “reinforced,” it means “increased
(in strength) and intensified.” As for “from these sutras,” it is in contradiction with those that are sources
concerning “(done) with the body.”

(Tib.) /gal te sems pa kho na las zhes bya ba la sogs pas ni gzhan dag mdo dang ’gal bar ston pa yin no/ /rnam
pa gsum ni srog gcod pa la sogs pa’i khyad par gyis so/ /ched du bsams nas zhes bya ba ni ched du bsams nas
yin gyi/ /bab col la sogs par ni ma yin pa’o/ /sdug bsngal ’byung ba zhes bya ba ni sdug bsngal gyi rgyur gyur
pa’i phyir na sdug bsngal kun ’byung ba yin no/ /sdug bsngal gyi rnam par smin pa can zhes bya ba ni ’bras bu
sdug bsngal yin pa’i phyir sdug bsngal gyi ’bras bu can yin no/ /byas shing zhes bya ba ni kun tu spyad pa’o/
/bsags pa yin zhes bya ba ni brtas pa dang ’phel bar byas zhes bya ba’i tha tshig go/ /mdo ’di las ni lus kyis zhes
’byung ba de dang ’gal lo/

The variables of a karmic impulse being enacted (byas-pa, Skt. kṛta) and reinforced (bsags-pa, Skt. upacaya; collected) affect
whether there is certainty about the lifetime in which the karmic aftermath of that karmic impulse will ripen – this lifetime,
the immediately following lifetime, or some lifetime after that. If a karmic impulse for an action of the body has been
premeditated (ched-du bsams-pa, Skt. saṃcintya) – in other words, if the karmic impulse for an action of the body has been
preceded by actions of the mind that have scrutinized and decided to commit the action – then it has been reinforced; its
strength has been increased and intensified. Since the three destructive actions of the body are also enacted with the
committing of these karmic actions of the body, then Vaibhashika argues that these three karmic impulses for actions of the
body, being both reinforced and enacted, must be revealing forms of the body. In such cases, there is certainty about the
lifetime in which they will ripen.

Sumatishila, An Annotated Commentary (Derge, 99B), goes on to explain the Sautrantika response that the karmic impulses
for these actions of the body are mental urges and not revealing forms:

As for “(their) gateway” and so on, this is the answer that the masterful teacher (Vasubandhu) has given in
response (to explain the Sautrantika position). It means that they (taking a life and so on) are called “activities of
the body” only when they are (analyzed as being) enacted by the mental urges (that bring these about) through the
gateway of the body (and not when they are analyzed as being enacted by revealing forms of the body). As for “(it
is certain that they are the mental urges) that [1] take (the body) as the gateway (through which they bring about
the actions), that [2] take (the body) as their sphere of influence, and that [3] take (the body) as what they direct
themselves at” – these (three) can be explained one after the other or they can be understood as being
synonymous.

(Tib.) /sgo zhes bya ba la sogs pa ’di ni slob dpon gyis lan btab pa yin te/ lus kyi sgo nas sems pa kho nas byas pa
la lus kyi bya ba zhes bya’o zhes bya ba’i tha tshig go/ /sgo dang / rten dang / dmigs pa ni ’og ma ’og mas bshad
pa’am/ rnam grangs su rig par bya’o/

The intended meaning of the sutra is not that the three destructive actions of the body are enacted by karmic impulses that
are revealing forms and that these revealing forms are reinforced and enacted, as Vaibhashika asserts. Rather, according to
Sautrantika, the intended meaning is that these three destructive actions of the body are enacted by karmic impulses that are
the mental factor of an urge and that these mental urges, as agents of these actions, are what are reinforced and enacted.
These mental urges (1) act through the gateway (sgo, Skt. dvāra) of the body, (2) take the body as their sphere of influence
(rten, Skt. adhiṣṭhāna) and (3) take the body as what they direct themselves at (dmigs-pa, Skt. ālambana). These three
manners in which the mental urge for a karmic action of the body performs its function may be explained as occurring
sequentially or simultaneously. In this way, mental urges enact the karmic actions of the body.

Vasubandhu explains the Sautrantika assertion about karmic impulses for actions of the body in a similar way in his
(Auto)commentary on “A Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge” (Chos mngon-pa’i mdzod-kyi rang-’grel, Skt.
Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya), (Gretil ed. 195.18–21, Derge Tengyur vol.160, 168B–169A):

Designating (shape) as that (as a revealing form), suppose you ask, “How do they (the Sautrantikas) designate the
karmic impulse for (an action of) the body?” The karmic impulse that has the body as its sphere of influence is the
karmic impulse for (an action of) the body. It is the mental urge that is the leader of the body there and there [Tib.:
It is the mental urge that (moves) the (initially) engaged body there and there]. Likewise, karmic impulses for
(actions of) speech and for (actions of) mind are also both to be known accordingly.

(Skt.) tāṃ ca prajñapayantaḥ kathaṃ kāyakarma prajñapayanti / kāyādhiṣṭhānaṃ karma kāyakarma yā cetanā
kāyasya tatra tatra praṇetrī / evaṃ vāṅmanaskarmaṇī api yathāyogaṃ veditavye /

(Tib.) de la ’dogs par byed pa na ji ltar lus kyi las su ’dogs par byed ce na/ lus la brten pa’i las ni lus kyi las te/ de
dang der lus ’jug par byed pa’i sems pa gang yin pa’o/ /de bzhin du ngag dang yid kyi las dag la yang ci rigs par
rig par bya’o/

The Sautrantika designation of shape as a revealing form will be explained in a later part of this series. For now, suffice it to
say that Sautrantika rejects the Vaibhashika assertion that shape is a distinct substantial entity separate from color and that it
is a karmic impulse.

Jinaputra Yashomitra explains in The Clarified Meaning, An Explanatory Commentary on (Vasubandhu’s) “Treasure House
of Special Topics of Knowledge” (Chos mngon-pa’i mdzod kyi ’grel-bshad don-gsal-ba, Skt. Sphuṭārtha Abhidharmakośavyākhyā)
(Gretil ed. 351, Derge Tengyur vol. 143, 6B–7A):
 As for “(Designating [shape] as that [as a revealing form], suppose you ask, ‘How do they (the Sautrantikas)
designate the karmic impulse for (an action of) the body?’ (Vaibhashika) asks, thinking that because (the shape of
the body) exists as what is designated (as a revealing form), it (a revealing form) is what is linked (to being
designated) as a karmic impulse for (an action of) the body [Tib.: thinking that it (a mental urge) is not fitting (to
be designated as) a karmic impulse for (an action of) the body].

(Sautrantika replies), “That which has the body as its sphere of influence” has the meaning “that which takes the
body as what it directs itself at.” The karmic impulse that takes the body as its sphere of influence is one whose
body has been initially engaged (by the karmic impulse for the action of the mind that scrutinized and decided to
commit a karmic action of the body). It is by means of that, in fact, that that mental urge (for the action of the
body) is the leader of the body there and there. [Tib.: (Thus, Sautrantika speaks of it as) “the mental urge that
(moves) the (initially) engaged body there and there.”]

As for “to be known accordingly,” a karmic impulse that has the speech as its sphere of influence is a karmic
impulse for (an action of) speech (a speech karma).

(Skt.) kathaṃ kāyakarma prajñāpayantīti. prajñaptisattvāt kāyakarmayoga iti manyamānaḥ pṛcchati.

kāyādhiṣṭhānam iti. kāyālambanam ity arthaḥ. yasya hi kāyaḥ pravartyaḥ. tat kāyādhiṣṭhānaṃ karma. tenāha. yā
cetanā kāyasya tatratatra pranetrīti. yathāyogaṃ veditavye iti. vāgadhiṣṭhānaṃ karma vākkarma.

(Tib.) /ji ltar lus kyi las su ’dogs par byed ces bya ba ni btags pa yod pa’i phyir lus kyi las su mi rung ngo snyam
du bsams nas ’dri ba yin no/ /lus la brten pa zhes bya ba ni lus la dmigs pa zhes bya ba’i don to/ /gang zhig gi
lus ’jug par ’gyur ba de ni lus la brten pa’i las yin te/ de’i phyir de dang der lus ’jug par byed pa’i sems pa gang
yin pa’o zhes bya ba smos so/ /ci rigs par rig par bya’o zhes bya ba ni ngag la brten pa’i las ni ngag gi las so/

In the context of the Vaibhashika discussion of revealing forms, the Sanskrit term adhiṣṭhāna (Tib. rten) can best be
translated as “physical support,” referring to the great elements (earth, water, fire and wind) of the ripened body (the
biological body) that serve as their “physical support.” The great elements of the ripened body are also the physical support
for a consciousness and its accompanying mental factors (including a mental urge) that appropriate (zin-pa, Skt. upātta) them
as the physical support that upholds them. Since speech is not an integral part of the ripened body, it cannot serve as the
physical support for a consciousness and its accompanying mental factors (including a mental urge). Therefore, adhiṣṭhāna in
the context of this Sautrantika presentation cannot have the same meaning as it does in the Vaibhashika system.

Here in the Sautrantika presentation, Jinaputra Yashomitra explains that adhiṣṭhāna refers to what the mental urges that are
the karmic impulses for actions of the body and speech “direct themselves at,” and “lead there and there” – namely, the body
and speech respectively. Therefore, in this context, adhiṣṭhāna can be translated as “sphere of influence.” As the physical
domains that the karmic mental urges direct themselves at, the body and speech are “the gateways” – in other words, the
“media” – through which the karmic mental urges bring about actions of the body and speech.

The mental urges that are the karmic impulses that engage the body and speech, leading them in committing karmic actions,
are not the only mental urges that direct themselves at the body and speech. The mental urges for the actions of the mind
that scrutinize and decide to commit a karmic action of the body or speech also direct themselves at the body and speech.
Thus, the body and speech that are led into enacting a karmic action by a mental urge that is a karmic impulse for an action
of body or speech are initially engaged by that mental urge for scrutinizing and deciding to commit the action.

Two Types of Karmic Impulses for Karmic Actions of the Mind

Jinaputra Yashomitra, The Clarified Meaning (Gretil 351, Derge 7A), goes on:

A karmic impulse for (an action of) the mind (a mind karma) is a karmic impulse of the mind. A karmic impulse for
(an action of) the mind (is) either (a karmic impulse) of the mind or a karmic impulse that is congruent (with a
mind). It is by means of that (mechanism regarding karmic impulses for actions of speech and the mind) that
(Vasubandhu) says, “accordingly.”

(Skt.) manaskarma tu manasaḥ karma. manasā vā saṃprayuktaṃ karma manaskarma. tena yathāyogam ity uktaṃ.
 (Tib.) /yid kyi las ni yid kyi las sam yid dang mtshungs par ldan pa’i las ni yid kyi las yin te/ des na ci rigs par zhes
bshad do/

The mental urges in the mental karmic actions of scrutinizing and deciding to commit an action of the body or speech are
referred to simply as karmic impulses of the mind (yid-kyi las, Skt. manasaḥ karma). The mental urges that are these karmic
impulses of the mind take the body or speech as [1] the gateway through which they bring about the actions of the body or
speech, [2] their sphere of influence and [3] what they direct themselves at.

Although such mental urges that are directed at the body or speech are congruent with the mind, nevertheless there are also
mental urges that are karmic impulses for actions of the mind that are also not the actions of scrutinizing and deciding to
commit an action of the body or speech. Such mental urges are referred to simply as “karmic impulses that are congruent
with a mind.” As explained in the next part of this series, an example of such a karmic impulse for an action of the mind is a
throwing karmic impulse (’phen-byed-kyi las, Skt. ākṣepaṇakarma) activated at the time of death and which propels the mental
consciousness to a next rebirth state.

A “mind” refers to a type of consciousness and its accompanying mental factors. Sautrantika accepts, but with some
modifications, the fivefold Vaibhashika presentation of congruence (mtshungs-ldan, Skt. saṃprayukta) of the consciousness
and its accompanying mental factors, including a mental urge, that Vasubandhu explains, Autocommentary (Gretil 62.5–7,
Derge 70A):

Suppose you ask, “Which individual features are the same, by which they (a consciousness and its accompanying
mental factors) are yoked in congruence with each other?” (They are) fivefold. It (the fivefold congruence) is by
means of five features of sameness, (namely) by means of a sameness of foundation, focal object, aspect, time,
and substantial entity.

(Skt.) kena prakāreṇa samaṃ parayuktā ityāha/ pañcadhā/ pañcabhiḥ

samatāprākārairāśrayālambanākārakāladravyasamatābhiḥ /

(Tib.) /rnam pa gang dag gis mtshungs par ldan zhe na/ rnam pa lngas/ mtshungs pa rnam pa lnga po rten dang
dmigs pa dang rnam pa dus dang rdzas mtshungs pa dag gi mtshungs par ldan no/

According to the Sautrantika interpretation, the consciousness and accompanying mental factors in a cognition (1) take the
same cognitive sensor (dbang-po, Skt. indriya) as their shared foundation (rten, Skt. āśraya), (2) take the same external object
as their shared focal object (dmigs-pa, ālambana), (3) give rise to the same mental hologram of the focal object as their
shared aspect (rnam-pa, Skt. ākāra), with this mental hologram having the same features as those of the focal object, (4) arise
and subside at the same time as their shared time (dus, Skt. kāla), and (5) arise with the consciousness and each mental
factor deriving from its own individual natal source and thus constituting its own individual substantial entity as their shared
feature concerning them being substantial entities (rdzas, Skt. dravya).

Initial Engagers and Subsequent Engagers

Sthiramati (Blo-gros brtan pa, Skt. Sthiramati), in his commentary, The Meaning of the Facts, An Annotated Subcommentary to
(Vasubandhu’s) “Autocommentary to ‘A Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge’” (Chos mngon-pa mdzod-kyi bshad-pa’i
rgya-cher ’grel-pa don-gyi de-kho-na-nyid, Skt. Abhidharmakoṣa-bhāṣyā-ṭīkā-tattvārtha) (Derge Tengyur vol. 210, 10B–11A),
provides further detail about Vasubandhu’s presentation of the Sautrantika assertions concerning the differences that
distinguish karmic impulses for actions of the body, speech and mind from each other:
 “As for a karmic impulse that takes the body as its sphere of influence, it is not (a revealing form) that abides in
the (interstitial spaces between the particles of the ripened) body that is designated like that. “That which takes the
body as its sphere of influence” (means) that which takes the body as what it directs itself at. In addition, it seeks
to make the body to be engaged. Because the mental urges to scrutinize (whether to commit an action) and to
enact (the action) both take the body as what they direct themselves at, the mental urge for the scrutinizing needs
to be ruled out (as being the karmic impulse for the action of the body). Because of that, (Vasubandhu) states,
“The mental urge that makes the body engaged (to move) there and there.” That means it is “(the karmic impulse)
that causes (the body) to be initially engaged” (that needs to be ruled out as being the karmic impulse for an
action of the body).

Similarly, as for “both karmic impulses for (actions of) speech and for (actions of) mind (can also be known)
accordingly,” a karmic impulse that has the speech as its sphere of influence is a karmic impulse for (an action of)
the speech. It is the mental urge that makes (the speech) to be engaged (in speaking). A karmic impulse that is
congruent with a mind is a karmic impulse for (an action of) the mind.

(Tib.) /lus la brten pa’i las ni lus kyi las so zhes de ltar ’dogs kyi lus la gnas pa ni ma yin no/ /lus la brten pa zhes
bya ba ni lus la dmigs pa ste/ de yang lus ’jug par byed pa’i sems la mngon par ’dod do/ /dpyod pa dang bya ba’i
sems pa gnyis ka lus la dmigs pa’i phyir na dpyod pa’i sems pa gcad par bya ba’i phyir/ de dang der lus ’jug par
byed pa’i sems pa gang yin pa’o zhes bya ba smos te rab tu ’jug par byed pa zhes bya ba’i tha tshig go/ /de bzhin
du ngag dang yid kyi las dag la yang ci rigs par zhes bya ba la/ ngag la brten pa’i las ni ngag gi las te/ ngag ’jug
par byed pa’i sems pa gang yin pa’o/ /yid dang mtshungs par ldan pa’i las ni yid kyi las so/

In the context of the ten destructive and ten constructive actions, the mental urges that are the karmic impulses for both
actions of the mind and actions of the body, together with the consciousness and other mental factors they accompany, take
the body as what they direct themselves at. The karmic impulse for the action of the mind that scrutinizes (dpyod-pa) whether
to commit the action and decides to do it precedes the karmic impulse for the action of the body, which enacts (bya-ba) the
action. For example, the three destructive actions of the mind – thinking covetously, thinking with malice and thinking
distortedly with antagonism – scrutinize and decide to commit a destructive action of the body or speech based, respectively,
on longing desire, anger or naivety.

Vasubandhu, Treasure House (IV.10) (Gretil ed., Derge 11A), states:

A motivator is of two types, [Skt. only: distinguished as] a causal motivator and a contemporaneous motivator. Of
the two, the first is that initial engager, the second is the subsequent engager.

(Skt.) samutthānaṃ dvidhā hetutatkṣaṇotthānasaṃjñitam / pravartakaṃ tayorādyaṃ dvitīyamanuvartakam //

(Tib.) /kun slong rnam gnyis rgyu dang ni/ /de yi dus kyi slong zhes bya/ /gnyis las dang po rab ’jug byed/ /gnyis
pa rjes su ’jug byed yin/

In the context of Sautrantika:

· The consciousness that the karmic impulse (the mental urge) for an action of the mind is congruent with is the causal
motivator (rgyu’i slong, Skt. hetūttāna) and initial engager (rab-tu ’jug-byed-pa, Skt. pravartika) of the body. A motivator
(kun-slong, Skt. samuttāna) is something that causes something else to arise.

· The consciousness driven by the karmic impulse (the mental urge) for the action of the body is the contemporaneous
motivator (dus-kyi kun-slong, Skt. tatkṣaṇotthāna) and subsequent engager (rjes-su ’jug-byed, Skt. anuvartika) of the
body.

Although the initial and subsequent engagers of the body or speech are types of consciousness, Sthiramati refers to the
mental urge that is congruent with such a consciousness also as an engager of the body or speech. In this passage, however,
Sthiramati does not contrast the initial engager with the subsequent engager. Further, of the two types of mental urges for
karmic actions of the mind, Sthiramati specifies only those that are simply congruent with a mind.

Sthiramati, The Meaning of the Facts (Derge 11A), continues:

 Suppose (Vaibhashika) say, “But being like that, then since both the karmic impulses for (actions of) the body and
for (actions of) the speech are also congruent with a mind, the absurd conclusion is that they too are karmic
impulses for (an action of) the mind.” (Well, according to Sautrantika) they are not like that. This is because,
although both the karmic impulses for (actions of) the body and for (actions of) the speech are (also) congruent
with a mind, (the type of consciousness that they are congruent with) as the engager for (the actions of) the body
and speech is stipulated differently.

(Tib.) /de ltar na lus dang ngag gi las dag kyang yid dang mtshungs par ldan pa’i phyir yid kyi las nyid du thal lo
zhe na/ de ni de lta ma yin te/ lus dang ngag gi las gnyis ni yid dang mtshungs par ldan pa yin yang lus dang
ngag ’jug par byed pa nyid kyi khyad par du byas pa’i phyir ro/

Both the mental urges that are karmic impulses for actions of the mind and those that are karmic impulses for subsequent
actions of the body or speech have the body or speech as what they direct themselves at. But, as Vasubandhu indicates in
Treasure House (IV.11) (Gretil ed., Derge 11A):

The initial engager is that which is to be gotten rid of (abandoned) with a seeing (pathway of mind) and is a
(mental) consciousness. Furthermore, the (consciousness) that is to be gotten rid of by an accustoming pathway
mind (path of meditation) can be both (an initial and a subsequent engager). Nevertheless, it is the fivefold
(sensory consciousnesses) that are the subsequent engagers.

(Skt.) pravartakaṃ dṛṣṭiheyaṃ/ vijñānam ubhayaṃ punaḥ / mānasaṃ bhāvanāheyaṃ/ pañcakaṃ tvanuvartakam //

(Tib.) /mthong bas spang bya’i rnam shes ni/ /rab tu ’jug byed yin yid ni/ /bsgom pas spang bya gnyis ka yin/
/lnga ni rjes su ’jug byed yin/

Thus,

· The consciousness that is the initial engager of the body or speech is mental consciousness.

· The consciousness that is the subsequent engager of the body or speech is a sensory consciousness.

Consider the example of swatting and killing a fly. The karmic impulse (the mental urge) for the action of the mind that thinks
about and decides to swat it is congruent with the initial engager (the mental consciousness) for moving the body to swat the
fly. The karmic impulse (the mental urge) for the action of the body that moves the body to actually swat it is congruent with
the subsequent engager (the sensory consciousness) in that action. Both karmic impulses are directed at the body for
swatting the fly.

The fly, however, may fly away before one can swat it. The inability to enact the swatting does not negate the fact that the
karmic impulse for the action of the mind that thought about and decided to swat the fly took the body as what it directed
itself at and, in doing so, was congruent with the initial engager mental consciousness for moving the body.

Thus, the term “mind” (yid, Skt. manas) has both (1) a general meaning that includes both mental and sensory consciousness
and (2) a specific meaning that refers only to mental consciousness.

· “Mind,” as the initial and subsequent engagers of the body and speech, uses “mind” in its general sense as both a mental
consciousness (the initial engager) and a sensory consciousness (a subsequent engager).

· “Mind” in the expression “a karmic impulse that is (merely) congruent with a mind” uses “mind” in its specific sense as
only a mental consciousness.

Karmic Impulses for Actions of the Mind Are Different from Karmic
Impulses for Actions of the Body

Sthiramati, The Meaning of the Facts (Derge 11A), goes on:

 Leaving aside (these karmic impulses that are congruent with) the minds (the types of consciousness) that are the
engagers for (actions of) the body and speech, all (other) karmic impulses, whether tainted or untainted, are
established as what are called “karmic impulses for (actions of) the mind” because they are congruent with a mind
(mental consciousness).

(Tib.) /lus dang ngag ’jug par byed pa’i sems ma gtogs pa’i sems pa zag pa dang bcas pa ’am/ zag pa med pa
gang yin pa de thams cad ni/ yid dang mtshungs par ldan pa’i phyir yid kyi las so zhes bya bar grub pa’o/

Recall that an example of this type of karmic impulse for an action of the mind is a throwing karmic impulse.

Vasubandu, A Discussion (Derge 144B), explains karmic impulses for actions of the mind that are not ones that scrutinize and
decide to commit an action of the body or speech:

Mental urges other than those (that are for scrutinizing and deciding to commit actions of the body or speech) are
called “karmic impulses for (actions of) the mind.” This is because they are congruent with a mind (mental
consciousness) and because they (these mental consciousnesses) are not initial engagers for (subsequent actions
of) the body or speech.

(Tib.) de las gzhan pa’i sems pa ni/ yid kyi las zhes bya ste/ yid dang mtshungs par ldan pa’i phyir dang / lus
dang / ngag rab tu ’jug par mi byed pa’i phyir ro/

Sumatishila, An Annotated Commentary (Derge 99B–100A), explains:

Suppose for someone else, the doubt comes to (their) mind wondering how it is that if karmic impulses for
(actions of) the body and so on are only mental urges, then what is the difference between a karmic impulse for
(an action of) the mind and those (that are for actions of the body and so on since both direct themselves at the
body)? (Vasubandhu) says, “(There are mental urges that are) other than those,” and so on. “Those (mental urges)
that are other than the ones that take the body as what they direct themselves at and so on” means those (mental
urges) that are not (initial) engagers (of the mind) that do have the body and so on as what they direct themselves
at.

Suppose you (then) ask, “How is it that they are called ‘karmic impulses for (actions of) the mind?’” It is because of
this: (Vasubandhu) says, “This is because they are congruent with a mind (mental consciousness).” The meaning is
“This is because they are congruent with just merely a mind (mental consciousness).” How is it that it is maintained
that they are congruent just merely with it (with a mental consciousness)? It is because of this: (Vasubandhu)
states, “(They are not initial engagers for actions) of the body and speech,” and so on.

(Tib.) /ci ste gzhan dag gal te lus la sogs pa’i las kyang sems pa kho na yin na/ ’o na yid gyi las dang de khyad par
ci yod snyam du sems su dogs nas/ de las gzhan pa’i zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs te/ lus g.yo ba la sogs pa la
brten pa’i sems pa las gzhan pa gang yin pa ste/ gang zhig lus la sogs pa la dmigs par zhugs pa ma yin pa’o zhes
bya ba’i tha tshig go/ /ji ltar na de yid kyi las zhes bya zhe na/ de’i phyir/ yid dang mtshungs par ldan pa’i phyir/
/zhes bya ba gsungs te/ yid tsam kho na dang mtshungs par ldan pa’i phyir ro zhes bya ba’i tha tshig go/ /ji ltar
na de tsam kho na dang mtshungs par ldan zhen/ de’i phyir/ lus dang ngag ces bya ba la sogs pa gsungs so/

“Congruent with just merely a mental consciousness” does not imply that the mental urge that is a karmic impulse for an
action of the mind can also be congruent with a sensory consciousness, but in the case of a throwing karmic impulse it is
congruent only with a mental consciousness. The meaning is that being congruent with a mental consciousness does not
entail also being directed at the body or speech, as is the case when the mental urge is congruent with a mental
consciousness that is an initial engager of the body or speech.

Since there are mental urges that are karmic impulses for actions of the mind that, like mental urges that are karmic impulses
for actions of the body or speech, are also directed at the body or speech, then to illustrate karmic impulses for actions of the
mind more individually, Vasubandhu specifies karmic impulses for actions of the mind that are not initial engagers of the
body or speech, such as throwing karmic impulses.